Jill Stien

Rank 38 of 47
|
Score -97

The statement criticizes the 'Hands Off' protests for their perceived silence on US foreign policy issues, particularly in regions like Yemen, Gaza, and Lebanon. It accuses the Democratic establishment of complicity in supporting Trump's foreign policy, which it describes as pursuing 'endless genocidal war.' The tone is accusatory and critical, aiming to highlight perceived hypocrisy or selective activism.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement uses strong language that could be seen as harmful, particularly the use of 'genocidal war,' which may not contribute to a constructive dialogue. This could be seen as a violation of striving to do no harm. [-2]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement does not engage in cyberbullying or hate speech, but it does make broad accusations against a political group, which could be seen as disrespectful. [-1]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement does not promote understanding, empathy, or compassion, as it focuses on criticism without offering solutions or fostering dialogue. [-2]
  4. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement does not engage in constructive criticism or dialogue, as it makes broad accusations without engaging with specific arguments or individuals. [-2]
  5. Principle 6:
    I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
    The statement attempts to use its influence to highlight perceived issues in foreign policy, which could be seen as an effort to better society by raising awareness. [+1]
  6. Principle 7:
    I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.
    The statement exercises free speech but does so in a way that may not be responsible or constructive, given its accusatory tone and lack of engagement with opposing views. [-1]